[Rumour] Chris Johnston: Lindholm is interested in staying

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Coleman brings value to the Flames, but that's not how I would evaluate a player being overpaid in a capped out league.

Would you be able to trade Coleman without retaining salary for FC this offseason? I don't think you could because of the length of his salary, his age, and his production.

The same way I'm pretty sure that if Coleman was a UFA this offseason he wouldn't get a $4.9M contract.

Pretty sure Conroy isn't up at night worrying about Blake Coleman's contract in the next four years.

He's one of the most consistent players that they have.

Impacts all aspects of the game.

You may be right about a capped out league but Coleman isn't an issue.

[PepsiFree]

Every year multiple teams find themselves in a “how are they going to get out of this one??” situation, and despite what we think, they pretty much always do.

End of the day, you don’t avoid signing your #1 centre because a third-line winger is overpaid. If you have to, you deal with the third-line winger.

Frolik should never have had any impact on Tkachuk’s contract. And guys like Coleman should have no impact on Lindholm’s.

There is always a solution, and not signing your best players is rarely a good one.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

They said being offered around, as in it is actively happening and not from earlier in the summer. Was surprised to hear that and suggested they may be working off bad information. Response was it was from a conversation just before Labor Day. How fresh is your information? Still hopeful they get a deal done, but this made me a little worried. Flames need Lindholm more than any other player IMO.

My latest intel comes from Tuesday. The Flames offer is still 8.5M x 8. The Lindholm camp has been at 9M all along, the gap is not big enough it can't be figured out but there are other things that still are not done, like signing bonus and salary structure. I am not privy to what each side is asking there. I am not worried about Lindholm leaving at this point, I am extremely confident he will get done.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Time will certainly tell.

But with the cap going up, and his overall play not as exposed to erosion as a speedy scoring type it may hold up fine.

I think we're focusing in on the wrong player. Coleman doesn't play the same position as Lindholm.

The real question is, do we want to Flames to pay both Kadri and Lindholm combined 16 million. Assuming the 9M x 8M rumor is true.

In a vacuum 9M for Lindholm is fair, but in the current context we are looking at a 2025-26 Flames team that is paying 34 year old Kadri 7M and 30 year old Lindholm 9 Million.

Is this the pathway to a competitive team? unfortunately I think not, but it might not matter because presumably that money would be better spent elsewhere, and if the Flames plan on being a 15th seed team, then a player worth that money may not come around.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Pretty sure Conroy isn't up at night worrying about Blake Coleman's contract in the next four years.

He's one of the most consistent players that they have.

Impacts all aspects of the game.

You may be right about a capped out league but Coleman isn't an issue.

Yeah I'm not suggesting Coleman is an issue.

I think that spending a large amount of cap-space in the middle of the roster has been a bit of a recurring theme for the Flames. Don't get me wrong, those players are mostly on fair deals, but I would prefer it if the Flames allocated more of their cap space to stars/players that could take over a game(which are hard to find and harder to keep).

[traptor]

I think signing lindholm is a good move if you're focused on being as competitive as possible over the next couple seasons.

Years 3-8 may be brutal to watch

36-39 year old kadri
34-38 huberdeau
33-38 lindy
33-38 weegar

Rasmus will be 30+ going into his next contract. Plus whatever other old UFAs we sign to try to make this ragtag group work.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I think the Flames would be silly to not have a solid gauge on the value Lindholm has around the league. An offer was made many months ago and nothing signed. While it could very well be coming back and seeing the vibe around the team before making a decision but if his decision is to let it play out and go to free agency the team needs to be ready to pivot.

If the guy’s not signing why is anyone surprised they are shopping him around. I’m sure they are doing that constantly with all of their pending UFAs and underperformers.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Yeah I'm not suggesting Coleman is an issue.

I think that spending a large amount of cap-space in the middle of the roster has been a bit of a recurring theme for the Flames. Don't get me wrong, those players are mostly on fair deals, but I would prefer it if the Flames allocated more of their cap space to stars/players that could take over a game(which are hard to find and harder to keep).

We had some of those and they left. The replacements are getting paid more. But aren’t producing yet.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by traptor

I think signing lindholm is a good move if you're focused on being as competitive as possible over the next couple seasons.

Years 3-8 may be brutal to watch

36-39 year old kadri
34-38 huberdeau
33-38 lindy
33-38 weegar

Rasmus will be 30+ going into his next contract. Plus whatever other old UFAs we sign to try to make this ragtag group work.

This is actually the bright side to giving Lindholm term. The cap is practically a lost cause in 3-8 years, so you might as well sign Lindholm and allow the Flames to compete now.

People say the Flames will never rebuild, but if most of the cap is tied to 37 year olds, they may not have a choice.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Every year multiple teams find themselves in a “how are they going to get out of this one??” situation, and despite what we think, they pretty much always do.

We will certainly be giving up futures no matter what, if we go the route of signing Lindholm. Teams have had to do a lot of unpleasant things to get out of much smaller messes. I mean, no team has had to forfeit games or sell the franchise, if that's what you mean by "get out of it".

[FanIn80]

Like anything else, I think there needs to be a clear goal as well as a clear and measurable plan to acheive that goal. There should also be a tangible way to assess both the goal and the plan.

In terms of the goal, I'm not really sure. I think this organization's goal is "make the playoffs and see what happens." This (in my belief) is a horrible goal. Is too vague with no real sense of accountability. It's essentially just a better-sounding way of saying "our goal is only to be a playoff team - nothing more, nothing less." Which (again, to me) sounds like an ownership directive to just secure some form of playoff revenue.

Besides the vagueness of make the playoffs and see what happens, it's really only for teams theat have playoff performers. It's not like 90% of our roster hasn't already been in the playoffs, and we haven't already seen what they do once they get there. Which brings me to the plan...

It seems to me that the whole point of "make the playoffs and see what happens" is the "see what happens" part. That's really the entire goal. You have to first make the playoffs to see what happens, but if that's all you were worried about, then that's all your goal would be. The inclusion of "see what happens" puts some onus on actually seeing something happen. Not re-seeing what has already happened during past attempts, but seeing what could happen this time. "See what happens" is only a thing if something's been done to produce something different to see. It insinuates a sense of question and curiosity - not "we already know what's gonna happen, we've done nothing different to change that."

So what's the plan? What are we doing different? What was the problem the last time we were in the playoffs and what have we done to correct (or even change) things this time around? If we make the playoffs with the exact roster we have right now, than all we've done is swap Johnny, Chucky and Gudbranson for Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar. We can get into a back and forth about whether we're better or worse becuase of those swaps... but in my memory, Johnny, Chucky and Gudbranson weren't the problem with our last playoffs. I think most would agree the real culprit was goaltending and our inability to not give Edmonton the only thing that could beat us: powerplays.

So, we've deduced a goal (to my knowledge, there's no "official" goal) and looked (briefly) at the only signs of a plan we've seen so far, and then measured that plan against what our actual deficiencies were last time out. What's the result? Have we really done anything that would lead us to perhaps see a different (read: better) outcome, or are we just applying the time-honored method for success: do the same thing and hope for a better result?

There's another saying... "if nothing changes, nothing changes." I'm not sure I've heard "if nothing changes, something changes" before, but I suppose this could be the year.

[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Redrum

We will certainly be giving up futures no matter what, if we go the route of signing Lindholm. Teams have had to do a lot of unpleasant things to get out of much smaller messes. I mean, no team has had to forfeit games or sell the franchise, if that's what you mean by "get out of it".

Teams, including the Flames have had to play games with short benchs though because of lack of cap space. It was one of the contributing factors to the Flames missing the playoffs in 2009-10 (could be wrong on the year) if I recall correctly. Not a direct forfeit, but believed to have contributed to the losses.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by traptor

I think signing lindholm is a good move if you're focused on being as competitive as possible over the next couple seasons.

Years 3-8 may be brutal to watch

36-39 year old kadri
34-38 huberdeau
33-38 lindy
33-38 weegar

Rasmus will be 30+ going into his next contract. Plus whatever other old UFAs we sign to try to make this ragtag group work.

What season are you looking at. Year 3 of Lindholm's extension? That's the 26/27 season. I have the following at the start of the season

Huberdeau 33 years old (34 after the stanley cup finals)
Lindholm 31 years old (32 in a few months)
Weegar 32 years old (33 mid-season)

Kadri will be 35 (36 2 months after season start) but he will be at $7mil for that season +2 more.

Cap also could be close to $100 mil by then and really you are talking 1 guy over 33 as Markstrom contract will be up by then. The total of these guys if Lindholm gets $9 mil is $32.75 mil with Kadri on a short-term deal at that point. Hardly see it being doom and gloom by then as guys will be making $15 mil a year by then.

27/28 we will be looking older but Kadri will be at a point that maybe we can move him to a rebuilding team if we aren't one by then.

Kadri always seems to get looped in with the others to make the rest of the core look old, but they aren't that old and most should not fall off a cliff right away.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Like anything else, I think there needs to be a clear goal as well as a clear and measurable plan to acheive that goal. There should also be a tangible way to assess both the goal and the plan.

The issue with any goal, and plan, as desireable as that is, is that it never works out. Players want out, players don't pan out, players have a bad year, coaches don't deliver.

Three years ago the plan wasn't "just get in" - it was to compete hard with stars Gaudreau and Tkachuk, with Lindholm, Monahan, Backlund also being core forwards, Mangiapane, Dube coming up and various depth guys filling in. With Rasmus, Hanifin, Valimaki, Kylington as core D. So they acquire the best UFA goalie and defensive Dman available. But Gaudreau has a crap year, Monahan slides, Markstrom comes back too early from injury, they play badly in the bubble and they don't feast on Ottawa during their "we can't win" phase.

The next year things go better and they continue to add depth at all positions, and finish first in the division only to crumble in round two. So that's a setback. I'm sure the goal remained the same. Until...

Gaudreau and Tkachuk both want out. The rest of the team is still there so Treliving is pretty much obliged to keep pushing to win and they replace Gaudreau with Huberdeau, sell Monahan to get Kadri and add Weegar. Seems like a slight setback but they are still operating in the plan. But players had a bad year. The coach made it worse.

There seems to be a goal. People just don't like it. And they don't recognize that GMs have to be flexible and adapt to things on the fly all the time. Gaudreau not signing at the last minute, Tkachuk playing a pretty unique game himself at contract time, Kylington needing a year off. And through all that they'd have had a decent year with better results in goal. Not a championship year but you might have called it a bump in the road. And it still might just be that.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Like anything else, I think there needs to be a clear goal as well as a clear and measurable plan to acheive that goal. There should also be a tangible way to assess both the goal and the plan.

In terms of the goal, I'm not really sure. I think this organization's goal is "make the playoffs and see what happens." This (in my belief) is a horrible goal. Is too vague with no real sense of accountability. It's essentially just a better-sounding way of saying "our goal is only to be a playoff team - nothing more, nothing less." Which (again, to me) sounds like an ownership directive to just secure some form of playoff revenue.

Besides the vagueness of make the playoffs and see what happens, it's really only for teams theat have playoff performers. It's not like 90% of our roster hasn't already been in the playoffs, and we haven't already seen what they do once they get there. Which brings me to the plan...

It seems to me that the whole point of "make the playoffs and see what happens" is the "see what happens" part. That's really the entire goal. You have to first make the playoffs to see what happens, but if that's all you were worried about, then that's all your goal would be. The inclusion of "see what happens" puts some onus on actually seeing something happen. Not re-seeing what has already happened during past attempts, but seeing what could happen this time. "See what happens" is only a thing if something's been done to produce something different to see. It insinuates a sense of question and curiosity - not "we already know what's gonna happen, we've done nothing different to change that."

So what's the plan? What are we doing different? What was the problem the last time we were in the playoffs and what have we done to correct (or even change) things this time around? If we make the playoffs with the exact roster we have right now, than all we've done is swap Johnny, Chucky and Gudbranson for Huberdeau, Kadri and Weegar. We can get into a back and forth about whether we're better or worse becuase of those swaps... but in my memory, Johnny, Chucky and Gudbranson weren't the problem with our last playoffs. I think most would agree the real culprit was goaltending and our inability to not give Edmonton the only thing that could beat us: powerplays.

So, we've deduced a goal (to my knowledge, there's no "official" goal) and looked (briefly) at the only signs of a plan we've seen so far, and then measured that plan against what our actual deficiencies were last time out. What's the result? Have we really done anything that would lead us to perhaps see a different (read: better) outcome, or are we just applying the time-honored method for success: do the same thing and hope for a better result?

There's another saying... "if nothing changes, nothing changes." I'm not sure I've heard "if nothing changes, something changes" before, but I suppose this could be the year.

I read all of this, and I agree in principle, but where I think the disconnect exists in is the Flames' goal (if you can call it that) versus fan expectations. I sincerely believe that Murray Edwards has a stranglehold on this franchise and has the cynical, self-serving goal of "**** everyone, make money." His negotiations with the CSEC indicate such, if it wasn't already obvious in the way other people in his wealth bracket conduct business.

He sees us all as indentured cash cows. No matter how the team performs, he knows he can rely on a steady stream of first round playoff revenue, so that's what he aims for. I don't even know if he's wrong anymore, because the league is moving more and more towards a league of "haves" and "have nots" where Calgary is firmly cemented as a "have not" organiztion.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Why would they start shopping him now right before camp starts unless he just called right after that interview he gave and said I won't sign.

From what everyone is saying is that they haven't negotiated much at all and will hammer it out when he is back.

Ya it’s weird since both sides are so honest and open in the media and there’s never been any reason before to make us think they’d ever be lying to us. They wouldn’t do that to us would they? I can’t see it.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

In terms of the goal, I'm not really sure. I think this organization's goal is "make the playoffs and see what happens." This (in my belief) is a horrible goal. Is too vague with no real sense of accountability. It's essentially just a better-sounding way of saying "our goal is only to be a playoff team - nothing more, nothing less." Which (again, to me) sounds like an ownership directive to just secure some form of playoff revenue.

Yup I hate how this is the mantra everyone around the team keeps repeating.
"Just need to get in and anything can happen "
How ####ing defeatist is that especially for an older core team locked up for a long time.

It's implying that we're not a contender, we're not even a guranteed playoff team but we're just hoping for the best.

If your an upcoming team sure, fine mantra, but for a veteran squad signing all these guys longterm into their late 30s this is not enough

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by traptor

Yup I hate how this is the mantra everyone around the team keeps repeating.
"Just need to get in and anything can happen "
How ####ing defeatist is that especially for an older core team locked up for a long time.

It's implying that we're not a contender, we're not even a guranteed playoff team but we're just hoping for the best.

If your an upcoming team sure, fine mantra, but for a veteran squad signing all these guys longterm into their late 30s this is not enough

It’s pretty much the exact opposite of defeatist by any definition.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Yeah I'm not suggesting Coleman is an issue.

I think that spending a large amount of cap-space in the middle of the roster has been a bit of a recurring theme for the Flames. Don't get me wrong, those players are mostly on fair deals, but I would prefer it if the Flames allocated more of their cap space to stars/players that could take over a game(which are hard to find and harder to keep).

This is a pretty fair assessment IMO. A guy like Coleman is on an OK deal but in the aggregate, feels like Flames have overpaid for middle of the roster for last 10 years or so.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The issue with any goal, and plan, as desireable as that is, is that it never works out. Players want out, players don't pan out, players have a bad year, coaches don't deliver.

Three years ago the plan wasn't "just get in" - it was to compete hard with stars Gaudreau and Tkachuk, with Lindholm, Monahan, Backlund also being core forwards, Mangiapane, Dube coming up and various depth guys filling in. With Rasmus, Hanifin, Valimaki, Kylington as core D. So they acquire the best UFA goalie and defensive Dman available. But Gaudreau has a crap year, Monahan slides, Markstrom comes back too early from injury, they play badly in the bubble and they don't feast on Ottawa during their "we can't win" phase.

The next year things go better and they continue to add depth at all positions, and finish first in the division only to crumble in round two. So that's a setback. I'm sure the goal remained the same. Until...

Gaudreau and Tkachuk both want out. The rest of the team is still there so Treliving is pretty much obliged to keep pushing to win and they replace Gaudreau with Huberdeau, sell Monahan to get Kadri and add Weegar. Seems like a slight setback but they are still operating in the plan. But players had a bad year. The coach made it worse.

There seems to be a goal. People just don't like it. And they don't recognize that GMs have to be flexible and adapt to things on the fly all the time. Gaudreau not signing at the last minute, Tkachuk playing a pretty unique game himself at contract time, Kylington needing a year off. And through all that they'd have had a decent year with better results in goal. Not a championship year but you might have called it a bump in the road. And it still might just be that.

Think this is the season where we find out if the core can actually compete. A lot of them had down years last year and Sutter and/or the late summer Florida trade took the majority of the blame for it.

They won’t have that excuse this year.